So I wonder what will happen if....

TSA Interrogator: "Where are you traveling to"
Male traveler: "Los Angeles"
TSA Interrogator: "Business or pleasure"
Male traveler: "Pleasure"
TSA Interrogator: "Are you married"
Male traveler: "Yes"
TSA Interrogator: "Why is she not traveling with you"
Male traveler: "Because I'm meeting my mistress"
.........
You think they'd call your house to verify?
.........
Or, even better:

TSA Interrogator: "Where are you traveling to"
Male traveler: "Las Vegas"
TSA Interrogator: "What is the purpose of your trip"
Male traveler: "Sex with a prostitute"
..........
Think that would get you turned over to the cops?

And that is the problem.

Would it be OK if government agents came to your house after you buy a ticket online? How about instead of just asking a few questions, they come in and look around. Would that be OK to? If it only took a minute or two, there's no harm, right? It must be OK if there's no harm.

How about if you refuse to let them search your bedroom, they threaten you with arrest and fines because you refuse to complete or are interfering with their screening? What if they retaliate against you for asking questions by feeling up your wife or daughter? No harm there, right?

Does it bother you at all that every process TSA has is kept secret? Have you ever stopped to think about why a football stadium can post their process at the gate, but TSA has to keep their process a secret?

Is there any line (for you) that the government can't cross? Or is anything for security OK with you?

Very well stated ^^

I can't remember where it's stated, but IIRC there is a provision somewhere that the Adminstrator (or maybe Secretary) may implement "any additional (security) measure deemed necessary".

Clearly it was intended that there would be some oversight to this, but Congress has equally clearly abdicated this responsibility. As it stands there is no effective restraint on the DHS/TSA and that's just WRONG.

Well said, but... I think Congress only intended to appear strong on security to their constituents without doing any real work or doing what's right, effective, etc.

There is no good reason to grant sweeping powers like this to an agency or to let them keep them. Even for an emergency, TSA should only be able to implement significant new procedures for 30 days. At that point, they must have formal legislation (e.g., H+S, plus signed by the president) to continue. Concurrence and committee meetings are not good enough (see InkUnderNails' last post).

Either way, if Congress had any interest in preserving civil liberties and implementing effective security, they would take their oversight and rule-making responsibilities a little more seriously.

Let's suppose that you remember it correctly. I remember something similar, but let's go with yours. Let's also suppose that the Administrator or Secretary implemented the measure to "say ones name as a requirement of flying on a commercial aircraft domestically."

Not to be a nuisance but where does this order reside? Where can I go to look it up and read it? If the actual text is secret, where is the reference to the number of the secret document and its classification level?

Without an official order, legally executed and recorded, posted for public comment and codified into the regulatory framework, or alternately reviewed confidentially by the appropriate oversight committees for the agency in question, it has no more legal or regulatory authority than random thoughts on a Post-It note stuck to the wall.

Pulling it out of ones rear nether regions and saying it is so because they say it is so does not make it so.

IANAL so this is just my lay sense.

Hard to say what the intent was as this provision* was enacted at a time when the legislative branch (and most everyone else) was in full panic mode, but I can see the point in granting extraordinary power to deal with exigent circumstances. An immediate and credible threat, should there ever be one, can't be countered by posting to the FR and waiting 30 days.

In addition to the assumed but missing oversight I mentioned there ought to have been some kind of sunset built in, although I'm sure the DHS would simply say the 'threat' is ongoing (Hi Janet :rolleyes: ). History will look back at the appalling laws that were spawned in 2001-2002 with disgust, I hope.

* I'll see if I can find it again later.

ETA: This is what I think I'm remembering My underline, for whatever that clause is worth. Not much I'd say.

Congress has only two priorities:
1. Vacations
2. Reelection

Controversial things like security must be avoided as all cost. It can interfere with their vacations and cost them elections.

If you can't see the difference between being asked your name at the airport and a government agent coming to search your house, you completely lack common sense.

Difference, yes. However, the former could lead to the latter. Once again, the camel's nose is under the tent.

Thanks. That makes a nice bookend for calling me delusional earlier. Feel free to insult my momma next time.

Would you care to respond to my questions now or is name calling all you've got?

"State your name" makes it to AUS
 

:rolleyes:

Has also infected Dallas - love field. I tried to resist and ended up with a 2 bar telling me the basic idea was that bad guys are illiterate and can't read the names on their fake id's. I'm fairly certain he didn't believe it himself. Oh well at least they're not unemployed.

Do it Animal House style. "I, state your name." "I, state your name."

Nah, telling them that what they are asking is not required by law and then handing them a copy if the regs is more fun.